I've always had a hard time understanding the RS. I knew that it wasn't about the characters but the relationship itself, and not just an argument between the MC and IC. I knew those things, but I just couldn't figure it out in a practical way, so I always just looked at it as the MC vs IC because that's as close as I could get to understanding it. But the other day something clicked and I think I get it now. So of course now I'd like to share my revelations here. The easiest way I know to do that is through example.

So the RS is like any other Throughline in that it's not just a relationship you're looking at (father/son, friends, co-workers, competitors, etc) but a problematic relationship. That's obvious, but when looking at the relationship as an MC vs IC argument, the problematic part of it just always seemed to be already built into it as the argument between them. But now I think I get how the relationship works, and it's like this.

Let's say the relationship at the heart of a story is between a father and a son. The context for why this relationship is problematic will be that the father would like the son to follow in his footsteps. So let's say the father is an athlete and the son is trying to make the High School team. Any disagreements outside of "following in the fathers footsteps" in this story, then, would be irrelevant to the RS throughline. For instance, if the son isn't doing his homework and is getting lots of bad grades, the father might be unhappy about it, but it won't be a problem at the heart of the RS as long as the son is still on the team and has plenty of time to practice. In fact, the father might not even care about it. But if neglecting his school work ends up getting the son kicked off the team, then there would be a problem between the father and son.

Or maybe the father is a businessman. Problems might arise from the son not being business-savvy enough to run the business despite his desire to do so, or from the son not caring to get into the business and opting to start a garage band, or anything that keeps the son from successfully joining the business.

So both can be in agreement in the relationship (both want the son to become an athlete or to join the business) and still have a problem because the relationship isn't just an argument between the two of them.

So does that sound about right? Thoughts on where I might be a bit off still? Let me know.

I think you've basically got it. The only one part I wasn't sure about is this:

Gregolas:

Any disagreements outside of "following in the fathers footsteps" in this story, then, would be irrelevant to the RS throughline.

Let's say the son gets suspended from the team, causing problems like you said -- maybe the father feels the son wasn't trying hard enough or being careful enough. While the son feels like it's not really fair to expect him to be perfect all the time. (these are like RS Symptom/Response stuff) Then later on you have a scene where problems seem to arise from something completely different, like maybe the son breaks a bowl in the kitchen ... the conflict there could also be a sign of the exact same difficulties within the relationship. So definitely part of the RS throughline, even though it doesn't seem to be about football.

But maybe that's what you were getting at anyway? I might have taken that one sentence out of context.

Also, your examples are awesome... so I was thinking it might help you to take them even further. Like, problems arise from the son not being business-savvy enough ... so how do they feel, how does the relationship feel, what happens to the relationship as a result of that? (That's definitely the kind of thing you'd want to do when illustrating your own RS.)

Good point, Mike. Different levels of the same conflict might not appear as a "following in the footsteps" problem. I was definitely not thinking about the way different levels of conflict would appear when I said that, so I'm glad you pointed that out.

All I was really getting at, although I didn't say it well, was that there could be conflict between the two not related to that specific relationship. For instance, there could be conflict between these two characters in the OS throughline, or there could be conflict just generally unrelated to the main problem within the story. It could be either a subplot or just the "static of real life" I think it's been referred to as, where we see the characters dealing with multiple problems outside of the story to make it feel more like real life.

Think romance novels, where the RS is the main read, with the OS getting a few sentences as an overview frame. Romances used to be all about different relationship dynamics, then publishers refused to publish (buy from writers) anything without all the 'hot graphic' stuff, the more the better. It was a bummer when the genre became known as soft porn. They were really fun to read and write, at the beginning of the genre. A lot of the writers have moved onto mystery (and maybe fantasy) series. You might check some of them out to see which authors emphasize the RS.

Interesting. A whole genre based around a single throughline. Romance hasn't typically been my thing. I read the Notebook at my wife's request once and just didn't get it. But that was well before my time with Dramatica. I'd be interested to see if I could get more into a romance now that I have a much different perspective on relationships. Any suggestions for movies that might be like the older romance novels you're talking about?

Most likely, that would be considered a novel and not a romance. But I haven't read it, not being interested in how it ended or a modern time period. There were successful novels that established romance writers laughed about, being they were poorly written but because a guy wrote it, all was forgiven and it was big in the market. fyi, Mysteries are the opposite, in that they are mostly about the OS, with the RS touched upon, generally speaking in a large brush stroke metaphor.

Romances provided happy endings and things working out, don't forget. That is not to everyone's taste. Do you have a favorite time period in history? I've been a Roman mystery series junkie for years.

What they have to offer, usually isn't done in a movie since production costs are so high. I'll think about it. Of course, a lot of people are big fans of Wuthering Heights, which is not my thing due to its MC poor decision making, but the film might fit. I'll mull over romance movie lists and get back on this.

Okay, so give me a few book titles to look up to see what you're talking about. Time period is not important. I'm really interested now in seeing what you're referring to (it was when you said you're not interested in the Notebook and Wuthering Heights is not your thing that you really set the hook here!). I haven't read Wuthering Heights since high school and didn't care for it then. Again, it might be interesting to look at it through the lens of Dramatica, but I don't particularly care to.

I like a good mystery, but sadly have never found myself reading many of them. For a large part of my life, the two main authors i read were King and Crichton. I branched out now and again, but those were my favorite...at least until I discovered Tolkien. Horror and supernatural fantasy-along with a few other similar genres-were largely my thing.

Here are a few movie examples, without much thought going into it...possible change of mind warning.

An Affair to Remember, both Boyer and Grant versionsSplashIt Happened One NightThe Philadelphia StoryThe Shop Around the CornerSabrinaAfrican QueenIndiscreetAs Good As It GetsYou’ve Got MailFrequencyA Man and a Woman, DO NOT SEE THE 20 YR LATER SEQUEL

Some book ideas:Here are a few book titles that you can scan at the library to see which are to your taste.

Mistress of Mellyn by Victoria HoltLetter from Peking, Portrait of a Marriage, and Pavilion of Women by Pearl S. BuckFriday's Child, April Lady, Sylvester, and Venetia by Georgette Heyer (maybe you would prefer some other of her books, but these are a mix of plots and ages plus good writing)Persuasion by Jane AustinPrincess Bride (which I haven’t read, yet, but it was the favorite book of our tour guide on a historical fiction writers' tour in the 90’s)

The Falco mystery series is interesting and fun to read, since the question remains: is it an objective story mystery OR a relationship story between Falco and everything in his life...haha. Marcus Didius Falco series by Lindsey Davis

Your examples tend to focus on the desires of the individuals in the relationship, not the relationship itself. The father wanting the son to follow in his footsteps describes the father's point-of-view. It will have an impact and inform the relationship but it doesn't describe the relationship itself.

When encoding the Relationship Story Throughline you should think of the ebb and blow between the two individuals and the rate of change at which they are getting closer or further apart. Codependent, dependent, interdependent -- these are words that help describe the kind of relationship that can develop between father and son.

When you tend to write the relationship from the point-of-view of the individuals ("the son not being business-savvy enough" or "the son not caring to get into the business") you remove yourself from considering the actual relationship itself.

Once you start writing about the dynamic space inbetween, that's where you will find the real emotional heart of your story, and where our story will open up.

To give an example of what Jim is talking about, take the High School football team example, which is about "following in the father's footsteps" as you said. Let's start with only considering the two individuals. You might think about how the father wants the son to make the team more than anything, and how the son wants to make the team because he wants to impress his father.

Then say you're encoding the Relationship Story Issue of Experience: "This works great!" you say. "The father really wants his son to have the same experiences he had in high school. Those years playing football were the best of his life." Or maybe even: "The father missed out on playing high school football because of a knee injury early in his freshman year, so now he wants his son to have all the great experiences that he missed."

So then you write your scene where the kid gets kicked off the team due to bad grades, and this helps you figure out the conflict. And there's some heart there maybe, but it's not to the level of what Jim's talking about...

...Because what you missed was that the RELATIONSHIP, the space between the father and son, is desperately craving the shared experience of them bonding and connecting over football, practicing in the backyard together like when the boy was 10, badmouthing the high school coach together, whatever. So now when the boy gets kicked off the team, it really hurts, there is a sense of loss. There was a real chance here for them to grow closer together, but now that's been taken away. Maybe the dialogue in your scene is almost the same, but the subtext is way different, and that matters. (and probably also feeds your ideas of what will happen in future scenes, backstory, etc. as the relationship continues to develop)

Anyway, just one possible encoding and kind of a cheesy example, but you can see how it helps you reach that "emotional heart".

Sounds like I still haven't got it after all. Haha. But that's why I come here.

So am I to understand then that it is all aspects of a relationship at play between two characters and not just the area where trouble comes from?

For instance an RS about a father and son who get along great other than the family business would still include aspects outside of the family business? I guess that makes sense. Or if there really just is no trouble outside of the business, would the relationship in that instance need to be described as "business partners" rather than father and son?

Sorry for being thick, but I was pretty proud of myself for just being able to move past "these two disagree" as the RS. Lol.

Awesome, Mike! Thanks for the example. I see what you mean. This perspective is definitely a problem area for me. So rather than father/son, do you think it would help to think of the relationship in your example as "shared experiences"? Do you feel that would flavor the story more, or end up limiting it too much?

What had me excited enough to post was the realization that people can have conflict between them, but still be okay in other areas. When I see "friends" or "father/son" it doesn't suggest problems to me. Kind of like "living on an island" doesn't suggest problems until I hear the context of "because his plane crash landed here leaving him stranded away from his family and everything he knows and loves".

Jim can correct me, but it might be better to think of the RS as "a story about a relationship", rather than as conflict between two people. Since the conflict in the RS can be anything the relationship doesn't like, not necessarily interpersonal conflict (though often there is interpersonal conflict). e.g. two people about to get married, they're totally in love, but maybe the relationship is scared that it won't work out, things are bound to come crashing down. Maybe in the first signpost they go out of their way to prove their love to each other, buying gifts, meanwhile the relationship is getting more and more scared... but you don't see any fighting, just kissing and gift-giving.

Or try watching the movie Frequency -- the relationship there is a father/son who have no interpersonal difficulties at all, as far as I can remember. All of the conflict is simply because they are separated by X and only able to connect in tantalizing Y conversations, and the ability to have those conversations could at any moment be lost forever. (also the RS throughline started with a big inequity Z - not an interpersonal one, but one that left a huge gap between them)

Maybe what's confusing me is that I'm trying to look at a problematic relationship rather than looking at the relationship as a perspective that is tackling a problem. I guess it would be like looking for a "problematic main character" because a main character isn't a problem in itself, but does have a perspective on how a problem looks.

I also think I'm focusing too much on the kind or nature of the relationship I'm looking at when I try to think of a Relationship, if that makes sense. Does a father/son relationship with a problem of fixed attitude look much different than a friendship with a problem of fixed attitude? It certainly seems like it will "impact and inform" the relationship, to steal from jhull's answer above, so on one level it will look different. But maybe the kind and nature of the relationship are what guide the ebb and flow of the relationship? But at the base both are still a relationship? (Reading back over this, I'm not sure that makes sense outside of my head)

Anyway, the big takeaway for me is that at least I'm finally seeing aspects of a relationship as being the RS rather than two characters interacting. maybe it's still wrong, but certainly sounds closer to me. Thanks all for the continued support and advice!

Does a father/son relationship with a problem of fixed attitude look much different than a friendship with a problem of fixed attitude?

Do Collateral and Finding Nemo look much different? (same storyform) ... I bet my 6 year old would think so ... but it depends on what you're looking at.

Anyway, you might be overthinking things. I think all of Jim's advice is helping you home in on the THING that all the Dramatica story points are talking about.

I sometimes like to think of Dramatica as a bunch of "equations of conflict", sort of like physics equations that describe the motion of a body in space. Those equations are pretty useless if you apply them to the wrong thing. With the Relationship Story, it's like you have two masses A & B connected by a tether, and you have this RS equation that Dramatica gives you. If you try to use the equation to describe the motion of A alone, or B alone, or even both A and B, it won't work, it'll be wrong. The equation only works to describe the tether. And note that the tether is kind of elastic, it ebbs and flows, and the final resolution can either snap it, or prove that all these story-forces have tempered it enough that it's not going to snap*. (But the actual ebbing and flowing, and whether it snaps or ends up secure, are up to you as the Author -- the RS equations don't tell you that, they deal more in the types of forces that are acting on it the whole time.)

* there might be other types of RS resolution that don't fit the binary "snap vs. end up secure". e.g. a resolution where the tether is willingly / amicably disconnected.

Yes. Although they have a very different nature. One is about two strangers running into each other and one of them voluntarily helping the other find a missing child. I don't remember much about the other one, but to the best of my recollection it's about two strangers coming together and one forcing the other to drive him around while he murders people. If one isn't fixated on finding a missing child and the other not focused on...again, I don't remember much...not driving the other around to kill people?...they still look different, but less so.

I pretty much lost my train of thought there and I'm not sure I was going anywhere significant with it anyway, so I'll leave you with this. You now have me wondering what Collateral would have looked like if Tom Cruise had a memory problem while helping Jamie Foxx look for a kid, or what Finding Nemo would have looked like if Nemo were forcing Dory to lead him around while he was harpooning other fish.